Musical Instruments Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Percussion Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Percussion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Percussion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PercussionWikipedia:WikiProject PercussionTemplate:WikiProject PercussionPercussion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"A fifth top-level group, electrophones, instruments which make sound primarily by way of electrically driven oscillators, such as theremins or synthesizers, was added later."

Should Turntables (when used by DJs as "musical instruments") be added to this classifiation system and if so, which category sould they go in? Have any attempts been made to do this?203.214.75.1272005 (UTC)

• Tricky, but rightly I'd say a turntable is an ideophone (more precisely a lamellophone), since the vibrating element is the needle, which is (part of) its body. But probably some spoilsport has decided it's an electrophone. Tom Duff 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A turntable is indeed an idiophone (not an "ideophone," which is an onomatopoetic word...a very different animal). The amplification system, which need not be electronic (see, for example, a gramophone), can be replaced or removed without affecting the instrument's ability to make sound. A true electronophone becomes mute without the presence of electrons (hence the name). Instruments that are merely amplified (Fender Rhodes electric piano, say) are electro-acoustic, remaining in their top-level classification but receiving modifying numbers and dashes within the Dewey Decimal system to indicate their specifics.144.92.157.165 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Rikyu[reply]

While I'm here, the link to The original system as published in 1914 (in German) is broken, but the Internet Archive has a copy. I'm not sure what the party line is on Internet Archive links, so I haven't updated it. Tom Duff 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I made some changes to the discussion of chordophones and electronophones--please take a look. These are based on discussion in Tellef Kvifte's Instruments and the Electronic Age: Toward a Terminology for a Unified Description of Playing Technique (Oslo: Solum Forlag, 1989). I haven't figured out yet how to add bibliographic information to an entry...when I do I'll get that in.Rikyu 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that the AMIS and Galpin are considering a sixth top-level group: the "Hydrophone" or "Hydraphone". This new grouping is supposed to include all water-based instruments, like the Japanese water zither. Anyone else heard of this going on? - NDCompuGeek 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why they can't be included under the Aerophone group, with the classification reworked to include anything that uses a *fluid* (a term which encompasses gas, liquid, plasma, vapour, super-fine powder...) as its sounding medium instead of merely gas...? 193.63.174.115 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a good number of Hornbostel-Sachs pages, such as List of idiophones by Hornbostel-Sachs number and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 11 and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 111 and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 111.1 and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 112 (there are more) and all the templates that those later pages use, like {{H-S1}}, {{HS11}}, {{HS111}}, {{HS111.1}} (there are more). Some of templates have had or are having their own individual WP:RfD, like {{HS111}}. Are all of these really necessary? A search for all articles in the main Wikipedia space with the term "Hornbostel-Sachs" in the name returns 145 results. Banaticus (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some work on this list and I think you make a good point that there are too many search returns. I would like to simplify things a bit. I'll continue to make it better. Ninehouse (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, why is it necessary to have individual pages for each classification as well as a complete explanation of each classification on this page? Too much repetition and, I think, unnecessary detail. It would make more sense to me to have the complete explanation on one page, and build lists of relevant instruments (such as blown idiophones) through tagging. Rikyu (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem throughout Wikipedia. It results from the lack of an overall editorial board. Broad topics often have sub-topics with their own articles, sometimes 3–5 levels deep. Where an article has sub-topics with articles devoted to them, sections for those sub-topics should have just enough information about the sub-topic to give the reader an overview. The {{Main}} template at the beginning of those sections should point readers to the article that has full coverage. Duplication of content doesn't help the reader, and makes maintaining the encyclopedia's quality and consistency more difficult.—Finell 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hornbostel–Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616132940/http://www.wesleyan.edu/vim/svh.html to http://www.wesleyan.edu/vim/svh.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the text of this article is copied from one or more of the Hornbostel–Sachs texts. This article could easily be a copyvio.

What exactly is the source(s) for this article (and all of the Category:Lists of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number articles)? What license are those sources available in?

There have been many versions of Hornbostel–Sachs published. Some important ones are:

• Musical Instrument Museums Online (MIMO), published in 2011
• the first English translation published in the Galpin Society Journal in 1961 (though it's behind a paywall, you can access the article through a free trial)
• The original by Erich Moritz von Hornbostel and Curt Sachs, published in 1914

Comparing the small differences between the versions, I think most of this article comes from the 1961 version. In particular, not that the section on Electrophones (5) is very small because few electrophones existed in 1961, while this section was expanded significantly by MIMO.

The Galpin Society is located in the UK, and UK copyright law at the time was the lifetime of the author plus 50 years. Anthony Baines was one of the translators, he died in 1997, so this text will be in copyright until 2047. So this article is probably a copyright violation. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]